And what about this part:Lastly, let's suppose that, on the day this article was published, five people who read it decide to actually try this experiment. If they call numbers all day, there's about a 1 in 30,000 chance that at some point during the day, one of them will get a busy signal because the person they've called is, themselves, calling a random stranger to say "God bless you."

That's not right. And nice split infinitive, too. I swear the dude who does xkcd has the mental faculties of a peanut.

And what about this part:Lastly, let's suppose that, on the day this article was published, five people who read it decide to actually try this experiment. If they call numbers all day, there's about a 1 in 30,000 chance that at some point during the day, one of them will get a busy signal because the person they've called is, themselves, calling a random stranger to say "God bless you."

That's not right. And nice split infinitive, too. I swear the dude who does xkcd has the mental faculties of a peanut.

And what about this part:Lastly, let's suppose that, on the day this article was published, five people who read it decide to actually try this experiment. If they call numbers all day, there's about a 1 in 30,000 chance that at some point during the day, one of them will get a busy signal because the person they've called is, themselves, calling a random stranger to say "God bless you."

That's not right. And nice split infinitive, too. I swear the dude who does xkcd has the mental faculties of a peanut.

HAAAAAAHHHAAA

Sevenizgud, you are unaware of how incredibly dumb you are, aren't you? For farks sake you're a global warming denier, what a joke.

/To practicing scientists/engineers, "Mathematics," as they view it, is a crucial component to their skill set, no matter the discipline. "Mathematics" to a Mathematician is something else generally.But either way, 'everything is not "math",' nor is everything physics.

Regarding the one about draining the oceans from two weeks ago through a hole at the bottom of Challenger Deep however... The final map showing the remaining shallow and unconnected seas creeps me out. There's something eerie about it, and I don't understand why.

/To practicing scientists/engineers, "Mathematics," as they view it, is a crucial component to their skill set, no matter the discipline. "Mathematics" to a Mathematician is something else generally.But either way, 'everything is not "math",' nor is everything physics.

I disagree. Math describes physics. The only things that aren't themselves physics are imaginary, which makes them physics, just not governed by physics. Unless your imagination is not a physics lesson itself. If that is the case, please disregard this post and carry on.

You lost me there. Mathematics is needed to push physics calculations all the way to the end (i.e. a cross-section), but physics experiments are what (eventually) define the mathematical equations that need to be used in these calculations to make predictions... I.e. (please forgive the oversimplifications here), F=Gm1m2/r2 - Calculating F in Newtons requires some algebra (which is "math") but it was the physics experiments that lead to the proper form of the equation itself and the definition of the value of "G" to however many sig digs are necessary ... If I misunderstood your point - don't bug out - we're verging on the philosophical here... Frankly, there's a couple of flavors of "physicist" really - experimentalist, phenomenologist, and theorist. One could quite easily make the case that the last one is a pretty adroit mathematician whose focus is somewhat less abstract than the typical mathematician... cheers

SevenizGud:And what about this part:Lastly, let's suppose that, on the day this article was published, five people who read it decide to actually try this experiment. If they call numbers all day, there's about a 1 in 30,000 chance that at some point during the day, one of them will get a busy signal because the person they've called is, themselves, calling a random stranger to say "God bless you."

That's not right. And nice split infinitive, too. I swear the dude who does xkcd has the mental faculties of a peanut.

"It's also long enough to miss a phone call. Sprint's ring cycle-the time the phone rings before going to voicemail-is 23 seconds.[2] (For those keeping score, that means Wagner's is 2,350 times longer.) "

/To practicing scientists/engineers, "Mathematics," as they view it, is a crucial component to their skill set, no matter the discipline. "Mathematics" to a Mathematician is something else generally.But either way, 'everything is not "math",' nor is everything physics.

I disagree. Math describes physics. The only things that aren't themselves physics are imaginary, which makes them physics, just not governed by physics. Unless your imagination is not a physics lesson itself. If that is the case, please disregard this post and carry on.

Uhm, no. I was trying to point out to you that shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy. So this is the second time. I don't know how much clearer I can be about it. I guess if you don't get it this time, I can try to draw you a diagram. But for your sake, to bring it to your level, I'll draw it in crayon.

Uhm, no. I was trying to point out to you that shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy. So this is the second time. I don't know how much clearer I can be about it. I guess if you don't get it this time, I can try to draw you a diagram. But for your sake, to bring it to your level, I'll draw it in crayon.

Regarding the one about draining the oceans from two weeks ago through a hole at the bottom of Challenger Deep however... The final map showing the remaining shallow and unconnected seas creeps me out. There's something eerie about it, and I don't understand why.

And what about this part:Lastly, let's suppose that, on the day this article was published, five people who read it decide to actually try this experiment. If they call numbers all day, there's about a 1 in 30,000 chance that at some point during the day, one of them will get a busy signal because the person they've called is, themselves, calling a random stranger to say "God bless you."

That's not right. And nice split infinitive, too. I swear the dude who does xkcd has the mental faculties of a peanut.

Please cite your source against the use of split infinitives. Split infinitives are acceptable grammar. No grammar book or style guide states they are unacceptable. While you're looking it up, please brush up on your usage of commas, peanut boy.

/To practicing scientists/engineers, "Mathematics," as they view it, is a crucial component to their skill set, no matter the discipline. "Mathematics" to a Mathematician is something else generally.But either way, 'everything is not "math",' nor is everything physics.

I disagree. Math describes physics. The only things that aren't themselves physics are imaginary, which makes them physics, just not governed by physics. Unless your imagination is not a physics lesson itself. If that is the case, please disregard this post and carry on.

I am open to examples of things that aren't physics. Seriously.

...most novels?

Essentially, a novel is a very complex idea put to paper or other media in order to enable others to understand that idea, or, possibly, to help the author better understand that idea. Ideas are creations of the human mind. The human mind operates solely on the principles of physics. The paper itself, or the data that enables the visual representation to occur on a computerized device can also be described by these same principles. Truly, even the aspect of the reader can be described by physics, as it involves the functioning of the human brain, itself a marvel of natural physics.

Lady Indica:You stated that a mathematical statement was wrong. YOU then made a claim.

OMG, seriously? Okay, here come the crayons.

I did not make a claim. I vacated a vacuous assertion made by XKCD. It was XKCD who made the original claim, without ANY evidence to support the claim. I then vacated his baseless assertion by offering the negation. There is no burden on negation that is more strict than the original assertion. Since the original assertion by XKCD came wholly unaccompanied, I had no duty to provide any evidence AT ALL, and it is STILL the burden on the original assertion to present with evidence.

You don't even understand it enough to get to the stipulated order of events.